Page 33 - TPA Journal May June 2021
P. 33
12(b)(6) dismissal was proper. received a tip from the Drug Enforcement
Agency field office in Juarez, Mexico, that ten
Specifically, to state a § 1983 claim for false pounds of methamphetamine was being stored at
arrest/false imprisonment, Arnold must plausibly a house in El Paso. The FBI agents enlisted a
allege that Williams “did not have probable cause cooperating informant to call Dominguez’s
to arrest him.” It is unclear from the complaint phone number, which was associated with the tip,
when exactly Arnold claims he was arrested and in order to arrange a controlled
detained, but, based on the sequence of events in methamphetamine purchase. In a series of phone
the complaint, this arrest must have occurred calls over the next few days, Dominguez and the
after Arnold fled and fell over the backyard informant discussed the informant’s ostensible
fence. The complaint does not plausibly explain interest in “windows”—a street term for
why Arnold’s flight and his trespass onto the methamphetamine. The informant met
neighboring property would not constitute Dominguez in person in the parking lot of a
probable cause for Williams to arrest him. Failing JCPenney where they discussed the sale of
to plausibly allege an essential element of a false “crystal,” and the informant offered to buy “ten”
arrest/false imprisonment claim, Arnold failed to for $35,000. The two agreed to meet again after
state a claim. Dominguez had verified how much supply she
had. After the meeting, the agents surveilled
The judgment of the district court is REVERSED Dominguez as she returned to the house she
in part and AFFIRMED in part, and the case is shared with Crittenden. Thereafter, the agents
REMANDED. observed the two depart the home in separate
cars. One of the agents followed Crittenden to
Arnold v. Williams, No. 19-30555, 5 th Cir., Oct. another home on Byway Drive in El Paso, where
Crittenden exited his vehicle and went inside.
23 rd , 2020.
The agent broke off the surveillance and rejoined
the remaining agents that had continued to
surveil Dominguez. Dominguez, however,
EVIDENCE – DRUG POSSESSION
ultimately led the agents back to the Byway
Drive residence. The agents observed a male who
A jury convicted Samuel Crittenden and his wife
was likely Crittenden1 exit the house and hand
Carla Dominguez of possession with intent to
Dominguez a black bag through the window of
distribute 500 grams or more of
her car. Dominguez then drove away from the
methamphetamine.
house. When law enforcement intercepted her,
they found a black leather handbag containing
The district court granted Crittenden a new trial
ten bundles of methamphetamine collectively
because the record does not show that he knew
weighing 4.2 kilograms. Law enforcement then
that the bags he removed from his house—and
interviewed Crittenden. According to the agents’
the bag his wife requested that he bring her—
later testimony, Crittenden stated that he had
contained methamphetamine or any other
moved the bags—which were Dominguez’s—to
controlled substance. Because the district court
the Byway Drive residence, believing that they
did not abuse its discretion in granting Crittenden
contained marijuana. When Dominguez asked
a new trial, we AFFIRM.
him to retrieve one of the bags for her, he did so.
A resident of the Byway Drive house would later
In 2017, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
testify that Crittenden had asked him if he could
30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
